Stuff

There are two new European election voting intention polls out today, both showing substantial leads for UKIP.

TNS-BMRB have European figures of CON 18%(-3), LAB 27%(-3), LDEM 10%(+1), UKIP 36%(+7), Others 9% (tabs here). Changes are from their last poll in early April.

ComRes/ITV have European figures of CON 18%(-4), LAB 27%(-3), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 38%(+8!), GREEN 4%. Full tabs are here and changes are once again from a previous poll in early April.

Note that both polls are based on only those certain to vote. This tends to boost up the support of UKIP, who have the most enthusiastic supporters in the European elections – if ComRes had taken those saying they were 5+/10 likely to vote it would have decreased UKIP’s lead to four points.

205 Responses to “Two new European election polls”

Interested in reading all the comments about FPTP v PR or at least AV.

What I picked up from voters in the run up to the referendum was the following.

1) Many didn’t like the change of political policy post-GE compared to pre-GE caused by Clegg and Cameron being in coalition, Clegg’s in particular!

2) Many didn’t like the AV system, but would have supported List PR or AMS.

3) When taken voters into discussion deeper, many wanted what is seemingly mutually exclusive, namely, “fairer” elections with seats representing votes cast more accurately (like PR), and all votes going towards electing someone wherever cast – BUT, a single party government deriving from such an election!!

Invent a system that answers that last conundrum and you may have the answer!!!!

(A clever barrister at work came up with an idea that I have not seen elsewhere – he called it the Double SV system!

It works like this – there are 400 single constituencies elected by SV. Plus a national list of 250 from each party nominated by their Party Leader – voters have a second Party List vote in addition to their constituency vote also usng SV (e.g. First vote for Cameron’s list, supplementary for Clegg’s list, or some such).

Run off count between two top Party Leader’s lists nationally (e.g. Cameron v Brown, with supplemantaries from those eliminated added).

Winner then gets over 50% – that equals share of seats in HoC for Govt Party.

Sufficient added to those from that party elected in 400 seats to take Govt party to the 50%+ share of HoC that they won on final count of List votes.

Remainder of seats allocated to opposition parties by d’Hondt counting their First votes on Party Lists, taking those constituency won seats into account).

RESULT: Basically the Govt party with a guaranteed over 50% of HoC, with proportionally balanced opposition benches. Constituency link kept for 400 MPs. No more hung parliaments ever – but parliamentary groups for all opposition parties of a decent size.)

On rent controls, without going into the details of the policy, there’s a chance that they don’t really matter as much as one might think, so there is less need to debate it and risk modding anyway. Because it could be like the energy gambit, where price controls are more of a short term sticking plaster, the real meat to pull prices down is reform of the market.

Similarly, the supposed plan to build a lot more housing would help to naturally pull rents down. And this could become especially salient – housing is already in the top ten – because we are looking at a population around 77 million by 2060 or so. In terms of polling, some may not like this, because they want their house price to rise. But I was surprised to see a little while ago how many are worried about house prices too.

If there is action on things like jobs and housing, then polling on immigration may additionally show it becoming less of a concern, with consequent impact on Ukip. Even on rent control though, more Tories think governments should have the power than not. And if the government build a lot more housing, it matters less what the rentiers think, though polling on that would be interesting…

You have to remember that there is no impediment (like a deposit) to standing in local elections. Indeed, one is discouraged from spending, having to fill out a return following the election, proving one did not spend more than (IIRC) a few pence per elector.

So if a council area has, say, 60,000 electors and 40 seats, if one cannot find 40 people of one’s persuasion to stand, even as a ‘paper’ candidate, it’s a pretty poor show. In fact, it *is* such a poor show and I remember well trying to get a party member to stand in a ward, and he plaintively saying to me, ‘but the people in my church don’t know i’m a ***, and it would be the end of some of my friendships’.